21 ms·

Getting around the London 2012 branding police

227 points by billpg 15y ago

justincormack 15y ago
Charlie Brooker seems to be asking to be sued https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker
- njs12345 15y ago
  It seems as though there's provision for satirical use of a mark to be allowed in the UK under some circumstances, so he might be ok: http://www.dyoung.com/trademarknewsletter-nov07#anchorlink2 http://www.dyoung.com/trademarknewsletter-nov07#anchorlink2
  - ktizo 15y ago
    I like his dramatisations of publicly available video, like footage of parliament, that he is legally not allowed to use over here as his programmes count as satire. That's right, in the UK it is actually illegal to use footage of parliament for satirical purposes. Luckily, there is little need to satirise parliament, as they usually do a fine job of making themselves look utterly ridiculous without any external help. Every time I see footage of it these days I feel like I'm watching the worlds most boring medieval reenactment society.
    - mjwalshe 15y ago
      Acuualy the written parlimentry sketches are much funnier.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >"satirical use of a mark" // Of course there is provision for non-commercial uses of trademarks &c.. If this were about trademark law then London Olympics 2012 could be used by anyone as it's merely a description of an event - it's not a distinctive mark by any stretch of the imagination; people couldn't however use their "Lisa Simpson performs fellatio" logo for example. The problem appears to be that the government passed a bill, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4, to strictly limit free expression wrt the Olympics. Presumably the IOC consider this sort of curtailing of rights to be part of what defines modern sporting events. TBH a request to do this should have had the response "we're sorry but the rights of the UK public aren't for sale to the highest bidder" ... obviously things swung the other way. For example under the London Olympics 2006 Act Section 3 I can't mention "summer 2012" unless I'm a licensee of the new "London Olympic Association Right" lest a judge find me to be illegally associating commercial enterprise with the Olympics. What a faff over a bit of sport.
- goatforce5 15y ago
  I'd bet five (5) of your English pence that he's working on some articles/shows about the inanity of the games and the machinery surrounding it. Getting a C&D or similar would be a good starting point for that.
  - mjwalshe 15y ago
    Simon Hoggart (the main political sketch writer on the Guardian) has been even more scathing.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Tichy 15y ago
Fine, let's just erase the whole event from the internet, I don't think it would be a huge loss for mankind.
tseabrooks 15y ago
Is this really at all interesting? This is the same sort of thing that happens with the Super Bowl year after year.
- viraptor 15y ago
  Some of us don't know much about super bowl, because it's a single country single sport thing. 2012 Olympic games in London are more universal. I didn't know anything about the super bowl issue.
  - slantyyz 15y ago
    This is nothing new. The IOC always swings a big copyright hammer in every host city, even if a business has existed for a long time. If there is any business that even remotely has a word starting with "Olymp" (think McDonald's and their litigiousness with the Mc prefix, but worse) in its name, such as a Greek restaurant, they'd better expect to be told to change your name. Local governments play along with the IOC because of the large amounts of money at play. While the Olympic games are a great thing, the IOC, however, is run just like any other business, and can be just as dirty/evil.
    - shrikant 15y ago
      I wonder if they would do anything about the Olympia Exhibition Centre. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28London%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28London%29
      - slantyyz 15y ago
        That's a good question (I'm Canadian and can't speak to London). I know most of the small businesses they go after can't afford the legal fees to fight them. In Vancouver, our House of Commons gave the IOC an exemption that allowed them to go after small businesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Winter_Olympics#Trademark_enforcement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over...
JohnnyFlash 15y ago
I can see the problem with people claiming to be or acting like sponsors of the event. If you pony up the money to sponsor the event you should see the benefit. However, clamping down on someone saying. "London 2012 Parking".. what is wrong with that? Its fact. Person is providing parking for people attending the 2012 event..
- archangel_one 15y ago
  That's exactly the same problem, isn't it? If someone were to pay to be the Official Provider of Carparks to the games, they don't want everyone else to be able to write something which makes it look like they are too. For a slightly more realistic example, lots of places are providing food to people attending the event, but McDonalds pays a lot of money so that they're the only ones that can advertise as "London 2012 Restaurant" or whatever.
  - read_wharf 15y ago
    "Clive's Parking. 1/2 mile from the Olympic venue." "Half Mile Parking."
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    I don't see how you can possibly trademark a year, which is a factual statement.
    - mattslight 15y ago
      You enshrine it as a by-law of the games.
    - archangel_one 15y ago
      You can get away with a lot in specific cases of trademarks. For example, Cadbury have been able to exert some protection of their usage of purple, but only for chocolate wrappers - not for everything. Similarly here, I can see how the IOC or LOCOG or whoever can exert control over "London 2012" which has a huge association with their brand. Generally it comes down to a fuzzy test of "would it be misleading", and for most people "London 2012 Hotel" probably would be if the hotel wasn't really associated with the event.
helipad 15y ago
I worked a tech company with a decent lawyer who needed to cross-check all the marketing newsletters and blog entries we posted related to the Winter Olympics. By the end we were using such convoluted terms that it rendered the entire exercise pointless.
drcube 15y ago
I've wondered about this with the Superbowl, aka "The Big Game". I understand that refusing to let people mention your hugely popular event without paying is a quick way to make money. But does it help in the long term? For events no one's ever heard of, obviously, it would be better to spread the word, rather than delete all unofficial mentions. It seems to me that eventually, the Superbowl will be better known as "the Big Game" or some other euphemism, and the NFL will be stuck wondering why they squandered their valuable trademark. The Olympics, due to its historical nature, may be less susceptible. But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC? I'm wondering what would happen if there were a movement to follow the rules religiously. Imagine if the only place you heard "Olympics" was in crappy advertisements? And every real human you talked to just said "The Quadrennial International Grab-Bag of Sports". Or maybe the "Quigbos". Anyway, I'm rambling. I just really hope these language police get what's coming to them.
- gaius 15y ago
  But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC? You pass an Act of Parliament to that effect. I'm not even kidding; that's what they've done.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    True in the U.S. as well; the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 granted a special trademark on "Olympic" and "Olympiad". That trademark was challenged by the Sports Event Formerly Known As The Gay Olympics, but the Supreme Court upheld it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletics,_Inc._v._United_States_Olympic_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletic...
  - rmc 15y ago
    Remember the UK doesn't have a constitution and hence it's not clear what it can't do. One common theory is "Parliament can pass a law on anything that's not physically impossible". Kinda makes a change from "only regulat interstate commerce"
    - 15y ago
Spoom 15y ago
If someone posts a prominent disclaimer that they are not an official sponsor, why should they be prevented from referring to an event by its actual name? If I owned a bar, and I was showing the London 2012 games on the TVs, I would advertise that I was showing the London 2012 games on the TVs. Exactly what is wrong with that?
- joshz 15y ago
  You'd still create an association between your ad and London 2012 in addition to using the term 'London 2012'.
  - Spoom 15y ago
    So then the question becomes this: Should trademark owners be able to quash any unauthorized "connections" to their product, even if it's made clear that the connection is not a sponsorship, only a mention? Frankly, that seems like an incredible overreach to me, and I believe one not supported by law.
    - joshz 15y ago
      I used their language after reading terms on their site. They mention "establishing a connection" and outline terms their "protected" terms and logos. It may as well be an overreach but it seems they're an effective bully and the choices would be to either stop mentioning Olympics in ads or fight over interpretations of the various protections in court. I think most targeted vendors that would take on them would probably go bankrupt pretty fast. Either way, I don't really know if they should be able to quash unauthorized ads but I do know they're going about it like assholes.
- jessriedel 15y ago
  I would think that there would be some sort of "fair use" for trademarks. My understanding is that the philosophy behind trademark law in the US is always based on whether or not a reasonable consumer would infer that the advertisement is officially associated with the trademark holder. But given that, I don't know why so many companies use the term "The Big Game" rather than "Superbowl"; maybe they like it better than having to explicitly include a disclaimed. And I also have no idea how the law works in the UK.
zerostar07 15y ago
It's always been like that, the Olympus-named athletics committee has always been ridiculously aggressive about their branding (and no, writing the words-that-cannot-be-named in greek won't save you either). My favourite replacement term is "Summer Games 2012" I wonder if they are preparing a Superinjunction to prohibit the tweeting of results. Now, imagine if Christmas had similar sponsors.
- noarchy 15y ago
  Personally, I'd love to see an attempt to prohibit tweeting of results. The Streisand Effect would be glorious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >'My favourite replacement term is "Summer Games 2012"' http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4 See Section 3. That's a non-allowed term for anyone not paid up as part of the LOAR. Indeed it appears that "Summer 2012" is also not allowed.
  - zerostar07 15y ago
    Whoa. I 'm running out of ideas, what do you think about "The Greek Athletics"
casca 15y ago
While they'll probably go a little too far, this is a good thing. The Olympics are an incredibly expensive event to put on that many people love and someone needs to pay for it. There are a limited number of people who can visit the games due to cost and seating restrictions, so TV advertising is required. If this kind of thing doesn't happen, the value and therefor the price of the sponsorship drops, leading to a worse Olympics for all. It doesn't matter if you don't like sport or the IOC or the fact that London won the Olympics. This is the situation and it would be imprudent to act any other way.
- ontIgnoreRealit 15y ago
  Spending more money on an event does not necessarily make it better. Plenty of other great sporting events are held without these kind of ridiculous measures.
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  Fine, they can claim Olympics, Olympic Games, etc. Maybe even Summer Games. But they simply have no claim to the year or the city name. It's not a little too far, it's far too far.
- zerostar07 15y ago
  While I don't disagree with protecting their private IP, don't forget that the Olympics are funded mainly by taxpayer's money in the host country, and the games are generally considered an issue of national pride for competing countries. It's not like the IOC is ethically entitled to complete ownership of the very ancient games, and thus able to treat the whole concept and event as its exclusive private property; unless they agree to cover the full cost.
- drewcrawford 15y ago
  > The Olympics are an incredibly expensive event to put on that many people love and someone needs to pay for it. I am continually fascinated by the idea, often proposed in other contexts than this one, that we must spend money as an axiom and then figure out how to fund it as a corollary. I don't really disagree with your dichotomy: we can either have expensive events or sane intellectual property law, but not both. I'm merely wondering at which meeting we picked one over the other, and what happened to my invitation :-)
drewcrawford 15y ago
For a more technical discussion of the intricacies of this topic as it relates to British Law, you may find this article interesting: http://www.bl.uk/sportandsociety/exploresocsci/businesseconomics/business/articles/intproperty.html http://www.bl.uk/sportandsociety/exploresocsci/businessecono...
soult 15y ago
My hometown recently hosted the first Youth Olympic Winter games. Despite the fact that you probably never heard of them, they are just as official as the real Olympic games. The organizers demanded that every non-sponsor logo in the venues be removed. Not just advertising, they wanted everything gone. Some poor schmucks had to go around and cover every logo with a piece of tape. On clocks, furniture, faucets and even inside the bidets and toilet bowls. Meanwhile they plastered ads for Coca Cola and Samsung all over our city. Olympic spirit my ass.
- jerf 15y ago
  "Olympic spirit my ass." Careful where you say that... they might brand that, too.
  - mikedmiked 15y ago
    "Summer of sport spirit" actually has a nice ring to it. I wonder about the allowance of typos? Could I sell merchandise with "Olympix" or "London 2k12"?
    - Mankhool 15y ago
      Based on my experience with VANOC well in advance of the Winter Olympics here in Vancouver - NO. I was in the process of making Olympic Anagram T-shirts (Olympian = Palimony) etc. and they threatened to destroy my life if any of my ART was found being sold online, on the street or on Mars. True. Also, given that the Olympics have become a political battering ram to push through, at all levels of government, any project at any cost at any consequence in the future, the answer is still - NO.
      - taligent 15y ago
        Ridiculous argument. 1) You elect your government. 2) Your government CHOOSES to participate in the Olympic bidding process and CHOOSES when and how to build infrastructure.
    - 15y ago
hef19898 15y ago
Does this mean I cannot advertise my planed trip to London in Summer 2012 as my London 2012 summer trip? I don't even like sport! It is after the games! Or before! So my Winter 2014 Sochi trip blog falls flatt too?!?!?!!
jaylevitt 15y ago
I bet a provocative non-sponsor could mount a successful satirical ad campaign, especially given the national sense of humor: "A lot of folks will be visiting to Lon-- (cough) to England this summer. Our proud city is hosting the... you know... the thing. When you're on vacation, why not stay with someone you know? If you're coming to the you-know-what here in you-know-where, you know us. Hotel Whatever: We don't play games here."
- taejo 15y ago
  The airline Kulula.com did this when there was that big thing where they kicked a ball around in the year between 2009 and 2011 in the country that's towards Antarctica from Namibia. http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/kulula-vs-fifa-round-two-not-next-year-not-last-year-but-somewhere-in-between.html http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/kulula-vs-fifa-ro... The international federation of kicking balls around, well, they kicked some balls around.
- reinhardt 15y ago
  Welcome to The City That Should Not Be Named for The Event That Should Not Be Named.
dexen 15y ago
Imagine for a moment a city without municipial transportation, without running water, electricity, phone service, cars[0], etc. Without your favorite restaurant chain. Heck, without those soap dispensers OP mentions. Suddenly it's no longer such a great place for hosting Games at. Given that those items, venues, services etc. add substantially to the value of the Games and build London's value over long time, I find it strange only the direct, one-time sponsors get to display their brands. ---- [0] will they tape-over brand logos on citizens' cars just as well?
- ticks 15y ago
  Given how short-term these sorts of events are and how unlikely it is to happen there again (in a lifetime), I suggest just letting them get on with the crazy thing and concentrate on more constructive subjects. One of those topics to keep the media busy.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    I'd love to ignore it but the Gov unilaterally deciding to spend £10 billion of public money entertaining rich people for a week or two in the midst of a recession when there's rampant unemployment, an ever widening poverty gap and cuts on all but essential public services ... sorry can't ignore that.
    - gouranga 15y ago
      Spot on. You speak for the majority of the population. Living in London, I know no-one who supports it at all.
- excuse-me 15y ago
  At previous "international steroid cases running about" events they have ejected people who had T-shirts with a non-sponsor logo, and people who drinking cans of the wrong sugary caffeinated drink
bluedanieru 15y ago
So can we all just stop talking about the Olympics altogether then? Normally I'd have a problem with restrictions on speech like this, but if it means nobody can ever mention the fucking Games ever again, I'm for it. Good riddance.
- GoodIntentions 15y ago
  "the fucking Games" That has a great ring to it. Perhaps everyone wishing to refer to the games without being sued should adopt it.
  - reinhardt 15y ago
    Or even more fitting to the location, "the bloody Games"
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ilitirit 15y ago
Reminds me of Kulula Airlines vs FIFA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTmlderyH0A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTmlderyH0A
crjn 15y ago
Have Bumblebee from Transformers say the message for you. He could dig into radio archives, historical records,youtube videos, get clippings on the fly and construct the message in his style. I bet no-one can object that
iuguy 15y ago
So over at http://www.44con.com/ http://www.44con.com/ we have a problem in that 44Con is in London during 2012. We have no sport as far as I'm aware (unless shooting speakers with high volume nerf weaponry counts) but with the changes in the law we have to be really careful about how we promote 44Con, and we were here first!
dabeeeenster 15y ago
It gets worse: "But civil rights campaigners are worried about several clauses in the London Olympic Games and Games Act 2006. Section 19(4) could cover protest placards, they said, as it read: "The regulations may apply in respect of advertising of any kind including in particular – (a) advertising of a non-commercial nature, and (b) announcements or notices of any kind." Section 22 allows a "constable or enforcement officer" to "enter land or premises" where they believe such an advert is being shown or produced. It allows for materials to be destroyed, and for the use of "reasonable force". The power to force entry requires a court warrant. Causing still further concern is a section granting the powers to an enforcement officer appointed by Olympic Delivery Authority. Anita Coles, policy officer for Liberty, said: "This goes much further than protecting the Olympic logo for commercial use. Regulations could ban signs urging boycotts of sponsors with sweat shops. Then private contractors designated by the Olympic authority could enter homes and other premises in the vicinity, seizing or destroying private property." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-liberties http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-...
- excuse-me 15y ago
  Don't worry you will still be allowed to lawfully protest about, eg China in Tibet - you will just have to do it from the official Olympic protest site. I believe this is somewhere in the Orkneys and shows the government's commitment to spreading the Olympics to the regions.
- taligent 15y ago
  Only with the permission of the courts. How is this ANY different to the status quo ?
waivej 15y ago
OK, I won't mention the big London event to anyone. If people are talking about it, I'll mention that I have no interest and walk away.
petercooper 15y ago
When we inevitably balls it up, it'll be called the "Woe-lympics" or something similarly stupid by the press anyway, as is the way of the British press ;-) We might as well start from that.
sdfjkl 15y ago
I've been to one of the LOCOG[1] briefings for (potential) suppliers a few years ago. The rules and regulations were absolutely ridiculous. One of the most memorable images shown to us was that of a shop window featuring (amongst a host of other items) several disconnected rings. The presenter then proudly announced that this sort of thing was not permitted unless you were one of the official sponsors and that the shop in question had been punished for their transgressions. Things got worse from there. Strictly no branding of any non-sponsors allowed anywhere, which meant no attribution of any kind (so you couldn't use the popular Silk icons on your website for example), not even in the URL (can't end in .aspx because that reflects a certain brand). Of course you also can't use or link to external websites (such as YouTube) so you'd effectively have to build your own video sharing service if you wanted to build something where people shared and uploaded video clips. If you look over the official website with this in mind, you can see the hoops (no pun intended) the builders had to jump through everywhere. For example, the map (http://www.london2012.com/map.php http://www.london2012.com/map.php) is entirely custom built and has no name in the copyright notice (it's only show when clicked). Or the aforementioned build-your-own video sharing service (http://www.london2012.com/videos/ http://www.london2012.com/videos/). Frankly I'm surprised there's a Server header in the HTTP response. [1] London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, see http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the-games/the-london-organising-committee/ http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

227 points by billpg 15y ago

justincormack 15y ago

Charlie Brooker seems to be asking to be sued https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker

njs12345 15y ago
It seems as though there's provision for satirical use of a mark to be allowed in the UK under some circumstances, so he might be ok: http://www.dyoung.com/trademarknewsletter-nov07#anchorlink2 http://www.dyoung.com/trademarknewsletter-nov07#anchorlink2
- ktizo 15y ago
  I like his dramatisations of publicly available video, like footage of parliament, that he is legally not allowed to use over here as his programmes count as satire. That's right, in the UK it is actually illegal to use footage of parliament for satirical purposes. Luckily, there is little need to satirise parliament, as they usually do a fine job of making themselves look utterly ridiculous without any external help. Every time I see footage of it these days I feel like I'm watching the worlds most boring medieval reenactment society.
  - mjwalshe 15y ago
    Acuualy the written parlimentry sketches are much funnier.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >"satirical use of a mark" // Of course there is provision for non-commercial uses of trademarks &c.. If this were about trademark law then London Olympics 2012 could be used by anyone as it's merely a description of an event - it's not a distinctive mark by any stretch of the imagination; people couldn't however use their "Lisa Simpson performs fellatio" logo for example. The problem appears to be that the government passed a bill, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4, to strictly limit free expression wrt the Olympics. Presumably the IOC consider this sort of curtailing of rights to be part of what defines modern sporting events. TBH a request to do this should have had the response "we're sorry but the rights of the UK public aren't for sale to the highest bidder" ... obviously things swung the other way. For example under the London Olympics 2006 Act Section 3 I can't mention "summer 2012" unless I'm a licensee of the new "London Olympic Association Right" lest a judge find me to be illegally associating commercial enterprise with the Olympics. What a faff over a bit of sport.
goatforce5 15y ago
I'd bet five (5) of your English pence that he's working on some articles/shows about the inanity of the games and the machinery surrounding it. Getting a C&D or similar would be a good starting point for that.
- mjwalshe 15y ago
  Simon Hoggart (the main political sketch writer on the Guardian) has been even more scathing.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Tichy 15y ago

Fine, let's just erase the whole event from the internet, I don't think it would be a huge loss for mankind.

tseabrooks 15y ago

Is this really at all interesting? This is the same sort of thing that happens with the Super Bowl year after year.

viraptor 15y ago
Some of us don't know much about super bowl, because it's a single country single sport thing. 2012 Olympic games in London are more universal. I didn't know anything about the super bowl issue.
- slantyyz 15y ago
  This is nothing new. The IOC always swings a big copyright hammer in every host city, even if a business has existed for a long time. If there is any business that even remotely has a word starting with "Olymp" (think McDonald's and their litigiousness with the Mc prefix, but worse) in its name, such as a Greek restaurant, they'd better expect to be told to change your name. Local governments play along with the IOC because of the large amounts of money at play. While the Olympic games are a great thing, the IOC, however, is run just like any other business, and can be just as dirty/evil.
  - shrikant 15y ago
    I wonder if they would do anything about the Olympia Exhibition Centre. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28London%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28London%29
    - slantyyz 15y ago
      That's a good question (I'm Canadian and can't speak to London). I know most of the small businesses they go after can't afford the legal fees to fight them. In Vancouver, our House of Commons gave the IOC an exemption that allowed them to go after small businesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Winter_Olympics#Trademark_enforcement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over...

JohnnyFlash 15y ago

I can see the problem with people claiming to be or acting like sponsors of the event. If you pony up the money to sponsor the event you should see the benefit. However, clamping down on someone saying. "London 2012 Parking".. what is wrong with that? Its fact. Person is providing parking for people attending the 2012 event..

archangel_one 15y ago
That's exactly the same problem, isn't it? If someone were to pay to be the Official Provider of Carparks to the games, they don't want everyone else to be able to write something which makes it look like they are too. For a slightly more realistic example, lots of places are providing food to people attending the event, but McDonalds pays a lot of money so that they're the only ones that can advertise as "London 2012 Restaurant" or whatever.
- read_wharf 15y ago
  "Clive's Parking. 1/2 mile from the Olympic venue." "Half Mile Parking."
- Karunamon 15y ago
  I don't see how you can possibly trademark a year, which is a factual statement.
  - mattslight 15y ago
    You enshrine it as a by-law of the games.
  - archangel_one 15y ago
    You can get away with a lot in specific cases of trademarks. For example, Cadbury have been able to exert some protection of their usage of purple, but only for chocolate wrappers - not for everything. Similarly here, I can see how the IOC or LOCOG or whoever can exert control over "London 2012" which has a huge association with their brand. Generally it comes down to a fuzzy test of "would it be misleading", and for most people "London 2012 Hotel" probably would be if the hotel wasn't really associated with the event.

helipad 15y ago

I worked a tech company with a decent lawyer who needed to cross-check all the marketing newsletters and blog entries we posted related to the Winter Olympics. By the end we were using such convoluted terms that it rendered the entire exercise pointless.

drcube 15y ago

I've wondered about this with the Superbowl, aka "The Big Game". I understand that refusing to let people mention your hugely popular event without paying is a quick way to make money. But does it help in the long term? For events no one's ever heard of, obviously, it would be better to spread the word, rather than delete all unofficial mentions. It seems to me that eventually, the Superbowl will be better known as "the Big Game" or some other euphemism, and the NFL will be stuck wondering why they squandered their valuable trademark. The Olympics, due to its historical nature, may be less susceptible. But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC? I'm wondering what would happen if there were a movement to follow the rules religiously. Imagine if the only place you heard "Olympics" was in crappy advertisements? And every real human you talked to just said "The Quadrennial International Grab-Bag of Sports". Or maybe the "Quigbos". Anyway, I'm rambling. I just really hope these language police get what's coming to them.

gaius 15y ago
But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC? You pass an Act of Parliament to that effect. I'm not even kidding; that's what they've done.
- _delirium 15y ago
  True in the U.S. as well; the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 granted a special trademark on "Olympic" and "Olympiad". That trademark was challenged by the Sports Event Formerly Known As The Gay Olympics, but the Supreme Court upheld it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletics,_Inc._v._United_States_Olympic_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletic...
- rmc 15y ago
  Remember the UK doesn't have a constitution and hence it's not clear what it can't do. One common theory is "Parliament can pass a law on anything that's not physically impossible". Kinda makes a change from "only regulat interstate commerce"
  - 15y ago

Spoom 15y ago

If someone posts a prominent disclaimer that they are not an official sponsor, why should they be prevented from referring to an event by its actual name? If I owned a bar, and I was showing the London 2012 games on the TVs, I would advertise that I was showing the London 2012 games on the TVs. Exactly what is wrong with that?

joshz 15y ago
You'd still create an association between your ad and London 2012 in addition to using the term 'London 2012'.
- Spoom 15y ago
  So then the question becomes this: Should trademark owners be able to quash any unauthorized "connections" to their product, even if it's made clear that the connection is not a sponsorship, only a mention? Frankly, that seems like an incredible overreach to me, and I believe one not supported by law.
  - joshz 15y ago
    I used their language after reading terms on their site. They mention "establishing a connection" and outline terms their "protected" terms and logos. It may as well be an overreach but it seems they're an effective bully and the choices would be to either stop mentioning Olympics in ads or fight over interpretations of the various protections in court. I think most targeted vendors that would take on them would probably go bankrupt pretty fast. Either way, I don't really know if they should be able to quash unauthorized ads but I do know they're going about it like assholes.
jessriedel 15y ago
I would think that there would be some sort of "fair use" for trademarks. My understanding is that the philosophy behind trademark law in the US is always based on whether or not a reasonable consumer would infer that the advertisement is officially associated with the trademark holder. But given that, I don't know why so many companies use the term "The Big Game" rather than "Superbowl"; maybe they like it better than having to explicitly include a disclaimed. And I also have no idea how the law works in the UK.

zerostar07 15y ago

It's always been like that, the Olympus-named athletics committee has always been ridiculously aggressive about their branding (and no, writing the words-that-cannot-be-named in greek won't save you either). My favourite replacement term is "Summer Games 2012" I wonder if they are preparing a Superinjunction to prohibit the tweeting of results. Now, imagine if Christmas had similar sponsors.

noarchy 15y ago
Personally, I'd love to see an attempt to prohibit tweeting of results. The Streisand Effect would be glorious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>'My favourite replacement term is "Summer Games 2012"' http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4 See Section 3. That's a non-allowed term for anyone not paid up as part of the LOAR. Indeed it appears that "Summer 2012" is also not allowed.
- zerostar07 15y ago
  Whoa. I 'm running out of ideas, what do you think about "The Greek Athletics"

casca 15y ago

While they'll probably go a little too far, this is a good thing. The Olympics are an incredibly expensive event to put on that many people love and someone needs to pay for it. There are a limited number of people who can visit the games due to cost and seating restrictions, so TV advertising is required. If this kind of thing doesn't happen, the value and therefor the price of the sponsorship drops, leading to a worse Olympics for all. It doesn't matter if you don't like sport or the IOC or the fact that London won the Olympics. This is the situation and it would be imprudent to act any other way.

ontIgnoreRealit 15y ago
Spending more money on an event does not necessarily make it better. Plenty of other great sporting events are held without these kind of ridiculous measures.
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Fine, they can claim Olympics, Olympic Games, etc. Maybe even Summer Games. But they simply have no claim to the year or the city name. It's not a little too far, it's far too far.
zerostar07 15y ago
While I don't disagree with protecting their private IP, don't forget that the Olympics are funded mainly by taxpayer's money in the host country, and the games are generally considered an issue of national pride for competing countries. It's not like the IOC is ethically entitled to complete ownership of the very ancient games, and thus able to treat the whole concept and event as its exclusive private property; unless they agree to cover the full cost.
drewcrawford 15y ago
> The Olympics are an incredibly expensive event to put on that many people love and someone needs to pay for it. I am continually fascinated by the idea, often proposed in other contexts than this one, that we must spend money as an axiom and then figure out how to fund it as a corollary. I don't really disagree with your dichotomy: we can either have expensive events or sane intellectual property law, but not both. I'm merely wondering at which meeting we picked one over the other, and what happened to my invitation :-)

drewcrawford 15y ago

For a more technical discussion of the intricacies of this topic as it relates to British Law, you may find this article interesting: http://www.bl.uk/sportandsociety/exploresocsci/businesseconomics/business/articles/intproperty.html http://www.bl.uk/sportandsociety/exploresocsci/businessecono...

soult 15y ago

My hometown recently hosted the first Youth Olympic Winter games. Despite the fact that you probably never heard of them, they are just as official as the real Olympic games. The organizers demanded that every non-sponsor logo in the venues be removed. Not just advertising, they wanted everything gone. Some poor schmucks had to go around and cover every logo with a piece of tape. On clocks, furniture, faucets and even inside the bidets and toilet bowls. Meanwhile they plastered ads for Coca Cola and Samsung all over our city. Olympic spirit my ass.

jerf 15y ago
"Olympic spirit my ass." Careful where you say that... they might brand that, too.
- mikedmiked 15y ago
  "Summer of sport spirit" actually has a nice ring to it. I wonder about the allowance of typos? Could I sell merchandise with "Olympix" or "London 2k12"?
  - Mankhool 15y ago
    Based on my experience with VANOC well in advance of the Winter Olympics here in Vancouver - NO. I was in the process of making Olympic Anagram T-shirts (Olympian = Palimony) etc. and they threatened to destroy my life if any of my ART was found being sold online, on the street or on Mars. True. Also, given that the Olympics have become a political battering ram to push through, at all levels of government, any project at any cost at any consequence in the future, the answer is still - NO.
    - taligent 15y ago
      Ridiculous argument. 1) You elect your government. 2) Your government CHOOSES to participate in the Olympic bidding process and CHOOSES when and how to build infrastructure.
  - 15y ago

hef19898 15y ago

Does this mean I cannot advertise my planed trip to London in Summer 2012 as my London 2012 summer trip? I don't even like sport! It is after the games! Or before! So my Winter 2014 Sochi trip blog falls flatt too?!?!?!!

jaylevitt 15y ago

I bet a provocative non-sponsor could mount a successful satirical ad campaign, especially given the national sense of humor: "A lot of folks will be visiting to Lon-- (cough) to England this summer. Our proud city is hosting the... you know... the thing. When you're on vacation, why not stay with someone you know? If you're coming to the you-know-what here in you-know-where, you know us. Hotel Whatever: We don't play games here."

taejo 15y ago
The airline Kulula.com did this when there was that big thing where they kicked a ball around in the year between 2009 and 2011 in the country that's towards Antarctica from Namibia. http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/kulula-vs-fifa-round-two-not-next-year-not-last-year-but-somewhere-in-between.html http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/kulula-vs-fifa-ro... The international federation of kicking balls around, well, they kicked some balls around.
reinhardt 15y ago
Welcome to The City That Should Not Be Named for The Event That Should Not Be Named.

dexen 15y ago

Imagine for a moment a city without municipial transportation, without running water, electricity, phone service, cars[0], etc. Without your favorite restaurant chain. Heck, without those soap dispensers OP mentions. Suddenly it's no longer such a great place for hosting Games at. Given that those items, venues, services etc. add substantially to the value of the Games and build London's value over long time, I find it strange only the direct, one-time sponsors get to display their brands. ---- [0] will they tape-over brand logos on citizens' cars just as well?

ticks 15y ago
Given how short-term these sorts of events are and how unlikely it is to happen there again (in a lifetime), I suggest just letting them get on with the crazy thing and concentrate on more constructive subjects. One of those topics to keep the media busy.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  I'd love to ignore it but the Gov unilaterally deciding to spend £10 billion of public money entertaining rich people for a week or two in the midst of a recession when there's rampant unemployment, an ever widening poverty gap and cuts on all but essential public services ... sorry can't ignore that.
  - gouranga 15y ago
    Spot on. You speak for the majority of the population. Living in London, I know no-one who supports it at all.
excuse-me 15y ago
At previous "international steroid cases running about" events they have ejected people who had T-shirts with a non-sponsor logo, and people who drinking cans of the wrong sugary caffeinated drink

bluedanieru 15y ago

So can we all just stop talking about the Olympics altogether then? Normally I'd have a problem with restrictions on speech like this, but if it means nobody can ever mention the fucking Games ever again, I'm for it. Good riddance.

GoodIntentions 15y ago
"the fucking Games" That has a great ring to it. Perhaps everyone wishing to refer to the games without being sued should adopt it.
- reinhardt 15y ago
  Or even more fitting to the location, "the bloody Games"

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ilitirit 15y ago

Reminds me of Kulula Airlines vs FIFA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTmlderyH0A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTmlderyH0A

crjn 15y ago

Have Bumblebee from Transformers say the message for you. He could dig into radio archives, historical records,youtube videos, get clippings on the fly and construct the message in his style. I bet no-one can object that

iuguy 15y ago

So over at http://www.44con.com/ http://www.44con.com/ we have a problem in that 44Con is in London during 2012. We have no sport as far as I'm aware (unless shooting speakers with high volume nerf weaponry counts) but with the changes in the law we have to be really careful about how we promote 44Con, and we were here first!

dabeeeenster 15y ago

It gets worse: "But civil rights campaigners are worried about several clauses in the London Olympic Games and Games Act 2006. Section 19(4) could cover protest placards, they said, as it read: "The regulations may apply in respect of advertising of any kind including in particular – (a) advertising of a non-commercial nature, and (b) announcements or notices of any kind." Section 22 allows a "constable or enforcement officer" to "enter land or premises" where they believe such an advert is being shown or produced. It allows for materials to be destroyed, and for the use of "reasonable force". The power to force entry requires a court warrant. Causing still further concern is a section granting the powers to an enforcement officer appointed by Olympic Delivery Authority. Anita Coles, policy officer for Liberty, said: "This goes much further than protecting the Olympic logo for commercial use. Regulations could ban signs urging boycotts of sponsors with sweat shops. Then private contractors designated by the Olympic authority could enter homes and other premises in the vicinity, seizing or destroying private property." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-liberties http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-...

excuse-me 15y ago
Don't worry you will still be allowed to lawfully protest about, eg China in Tibet - you will just have to do it from the official Olympic protest site. I believe this is somewhere in the Orkneys and shows the government's commitment to spreading the Olympics to the regions.
taligent 15y ago
Only with the permission of the courts. How is this ANY different to the status quo ?

waivej 15y ago

OK, I won't mention the big London event to anyone. If people are talking about it, I'll mention that I have no interest and walk away.

petercooper 15y ago

When we inevitably balls it up, it'll be called the "Woe-lympics" or something similarly stupid by the press anyway, as is the way of the British press ;-) We might as well start from that.

sdfjkl 15y ago

I've been to one of the LOCOG[1] briefings for (potential) suppliers a few years ago. The rules and regulations were absolutely ridiculous. One of the most memorable images shown to us was that of a shop window featuring (amongst a host of other items) several disconnected rings. The presenter then proudly announced that this sort of thing was not permitted unless you were one of the official sponsors and that the shop in question had been punished for their transgressions. Things got worse from there. Strictly no branding of any non-sponsors allowed anywhere, which meant no attribution of any kind (so you couldn't use the popular Silk icons on your website for example), not even in the URL (can't end in .aspx because that reflects a certain brand). Of course you also can't use or link to external websites (such as YouTube) so you'd effectively have to build your own video sharing service if you wanted to build something where people shared and uploaded video clips. If you look over the official website with this in mind, you can see the hoops (no pun intended) the builders had to jump through everywhere. For example, the map (http://www.london2012.com/map.php http://www.london2012.com/map.php) is entirely custom built and has no name in the copyright notice (it's only show when clicked). Or the aforementioned build-your-own video sharing service (http://www.london2012.com/videos/ http://www.london2012.com/videos/). Frankly I'm surprised there's a Server header in the HTTP response. [1] London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, see http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the-games/the-london-organising-committee/ http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]